If you watch SyFi then both Killjoys and Dark Matter have strong female leads and other strong female characters.

Female leads are more common than they used to be. But it should all be about the character

That. Thing is, it seems like in some films and series, female leads are cast because feminism. Those have an unfortunate tendency to end up having a certain whiff of a dude with boobs about them.

Ok, I guess that requires a bit of clarification... I despise doing long comments on Facebook, by the way.

What I mean is, subjectively to me, it feels like the female lead is sometimes cast to fill a role originally intended for a man, or worse, a role was created to satisfy some bullshit feminist agenda rather than to best benefit the storytelling. Actually, speaking of Killjoys, while I'm a bit of a fan of Dutch and Co, the show does have a certain odor of "Hey! Girls can be tough too!" about it, to which I say "Fuck your agenda," but... The concept is cool, so they are excused.

When it comes to female leads specifically, on the upper end of the scale, we have shows like Bones, where I think the lead is absolutely excellent, judged by one criterion - can I picture someone else filling that role after watching the show for a season or two and doing as well or better? In case of Bones, absolutely not. And then on the polar opposite end of the scale you have abominations like the remake of Ghostbusters...

Fuck it, I'm taking it to the forums.

Netflix is actually pretty much crawling with silver-screen-feminist crap (and for the purpose of this conversation, I do apply "silver screen" as a label to series as well as films, in case that's unclear) as a large number of featured shows, especially of the brand new variety, seem to compete in order to "out-egalitarianise" each other. Some do succeed to a certain degree, most do not.

Now, do let us start zeroing in on the meet of my problem with this trend of forced feminization of leads in films and series and such.

I don't need characters I like or relate to to be similar to me, be it in sex, age, color or even species. Thus, in my tribe of one, those characteristics are a non-issue. Being believable (in their respective worlds) and/or relatable, however, those are the things I do look for. For example, I thought much-praised Dexter was a shitty-ass show, mostly because of the main character utterly failing to convince me of his mental issues being real. He was a male like me, white like me and roughly my age-ish. All irrelevant facts when faced with my issue with the damned thing. On the other hand, Hugh Laurie made perfect sense as House in the world of that show. Again, a male like me, white like me... A good few years older, but again, those facts are utterly irrelevant to why I thought his performance was good.

Making art, which I consider most entertainment media to be, to one degree or another, is like... Making art. Unless it happens organically, so to speak, I'm just not interested. So yes, if you want to speak to the Tumblr feminists and SJWs and their fellow cultists... Why not. Force "marginalized groups" forward in the most obvious ways you can find. If you want to make a statement to people like me though... Fucking do better.

Female leading characters are very common in e-published sci-fi and fantasy literature. Not much to do with feminism, more to do with male fantasy, female authors tend to be more nuanced.

Some stories are actually strong and inventive plot-lines with strong, not-strongly-sexualised female leads. Some have dominant-but-non-sexual-female leads. Some are merely teenage wet dream stuff. Most are written by men.

Certainly to the fantasy part. However, one does can look at many of the characters at the masturbatory aid end of the spectrum from a "and by the way, she's a GIRL! You got a problem with that? Huh? HUH?!" angle.

Quote

female authors tend to be more nuanced.

Eh. There is a fair bit of two-dimensionality there as well.

Quote

Sci-fi tends to be the least sexualised, fantasy the most.

Tell me about it! I've been on vacation and managed to suffer through a season of Shannara Chronicles or some such. That is a good example of masturbatory aid show for both sexes and major sexual orientations. Actually, the guy... Whatshisname... The elf-kid, he did a fair enough job, but the two main female characters... Either utterly talentless, or disinterested in what they are doing. In any case, that thing churned out more cheese per episode than Italy does in a year. Avoid unless teenager.

I never watched the show in the OP but I don't see the problem with "women can be strong too" and why a "fuck you" to that agenda is an appropriate response. I don't really care how they are portrayed because it's not real anyways. Even the news is dramatized for bringing in viewers.

It's all art to me and art has no limits. What matters to me is that I'm entertained. And it's up to the artists and creators to do that. If I'm looking for stuff to throw poop at, I'm not going to be entertained.

When you look at the success of YouTube and the people who create content there, you never would have guess someone who just yells and plays video games alone, by himself would be making money that way. Let alone millions of dollars like some.

What entertains someone may not entertain me. But that's okay because I can go be entertained with something else.

So it's okay for me if they put feminism in movies. I'm open to new experiences. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. I'm not special and neither are they. We all end up the same way when the universe ends.

I don't know how accurate these tests were but they tested people from different races and showed them pictures of different skin color doing and wearing the same thing. They all noted that people with darker skin seemed more dangerous and people with lighter skin seemed more trustworthy. Subjective experiment sure, but do we really know why that happens? Is it a product of the media? I know many people who would say they don't feel that way, but how do we know it's not subconscious?

Sure everyone wants to believe the subconscious story until it challenges their beliefs. People can have two beliefs at once. It's called cognitive dissonance.

Perhaps that is really the problem with today's world. They want to believe the thing that gives them the most comfort. But once a someone or something comes around to say it's okay to believe the other thing, they do. And the coralling begins.

« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 07:46:35 AM by Arturo »

Logged

But, uh...well there it is."Nothing's a struggle, but everything is a challenge"-AnonHate Is Weakness

I never watched the show in the OP but I don't see the problem with "women can be strong too" and why a "fuck you" to that agenda is an appropriate response. I don't really care how they are portrayed because it's not real anyways. Even the news is dramatized for bringing in viewers.

Ah! Thank you for raising that point. I hoped someone would. It is highly subjective, so I do would like some input from the forum on this.

What's the problem with women being "strong too?" It's simple. People can be weak or strong or anything in-between. Same for the bravery/cowardice gradient. Same for a whole bunch of... Let's call them psychological (as opposed to physical) traits for the purpose of this discussion. Note that I said "people," not "men" or "women." In my use of that word lies your answer.

I consider my response appropriate because when you tell me a good story, the moral of it, if there even is one, should be mine to derive. Banners and buzzwords and slogans, be they verbal or visual, or a combination thereof, are obvious and lazy tools, albeit good for protests and rallies. Art, however, is only art when it's open to be completely misinterpreted with regard to its creator's intent by the observer. Note that I said "Fuck your agenda" rather than "fuck you for having an agenda" or even "fuck you for pushing [it]" Broadly speaking, what it means is "fuck you for not letting me the viewer decide what the agenda is"

You see, I want to understand the universes of music, literature, motion picture based fiction and what have you my way. If I want "earthly facts," I'll put on something with Sir David Attenborough, thank you very much.

Quote

It's all art to me and art has no limits. What matters to me is that I'm entertained. And it's up to the artists and creators to do that. If I'm looking for stuff to throw poop at, I'm not going to be entertained.

Well... I do not view every product of human imagination as art. Granted, I do not define it as narrowly as something which has to have no meaning outside itself, but... Yeah.

Quote

When you look at the success of YouTube and the people who create content there, you never would have guess someone who just yells and plays video games alone, by himself would be making money that way. Let alone millions of dollars like some.

Ok... You wouldn't think Johnny Depp would be making as much as he does either, and yet he does. Just one example of many. Financial success does not equal artistic worthiness. For starters, the first can be measured with a reasonable degree of objectivity. The latter... Less so, and quite often by using the former as one of the variables.

To put it this way, the fact that a painter sells paintings does not mean that they are not absolute, uninspired shit. For instance, it can mean that a few such paintings resonated with a few select individuals (refer to the above point) and later sales were little but products of the name.

Quote

What entertains someone may not entertain me. But that's okay because I can go be entertained with something else.

Yep.

Quote

So it's okay for me if they put feminism in movies. I'm open to new experiences. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. I'm not special and neither are they. We all end up the same way when the universe ends.

Again, I refer you to the above comments and, to my original post. It's not feminism in movies I have a problem with.

Quote

I don't know how accurate these tests were but they tested people from different races and showed them pictures of different skin color doing and wearing the same thing. They all noted that people with darker skin seemed more dangerous and people with lighter skin seemed more trustworthy. Subjective experiment sure, but do we really know why that happens? Is it a product of the media? I know many people who would say they don't feel that way, but how do we know it's not subconscious?

Hm... This is interesting. I am speculating right out of my ass here, but I assume that may have something to do with the perceived likelihood of being wronged by, say, a Hispanic guy in a tuxedo rather than a white guy in sweat pants and polo shirt.

Yes, I think media plays a major part in this, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that that is always unfounded. Generally, I dislike tribalism based on physical attributes, but if I have my (admittedly old, also European) statistics straight, a white person is more likely to be killed by another white person. A black person is more likely to be killed by a black person. The chances of being killed by somebody in the first place, by the way, are pretty-much fuck-all.

Quote

Sure everyone wants to believe the subconscious story until it challenges their beliefs. People can have two beliefs at once. It's called cognitive dissonance.

Well, yes. However, based on no data beyond personal sensibilities, I don't think it's a substantial issue.

Quote

Perhaps that is really the problem with today's world. They want to believe the thing that gives them the most comfort. But once a someone or something comes around to say it's okay to believe the other thing, they do. And the coralling begins.

Mmh... I don't think bias, tribalism, gullibility and such are a problem with today's world. The biases are getting more narrow and the tribes are getting more specialized, but they were always there. Personally, I think it's more important to recognize them in oneself and work with and around them than recognize them in others, or actively try to suppress them (especially in others) because Kumbaya.

I rarely get involved with this sort of argument. My main philosophy is that people are as strong, determined, intelligent, able . . . as people are - gender has little to do with it unless that person chooses to adopt a specific gender role. If a woman wants to develop muscles for work or sport, or even fighting in an army, good on them, that is valid. If they want to be muscular to be seen as some kind of spectacle, that's OK as well, but gets no Brownie points from me. It's a kind of make-up, shallow and artificial.

I tend to ask once if a woman wants a hand doing something, if they say, "No, thanks" I accept that and let them get on with it. If they are struggling I might ask again if we get on together, but never three times unless there is danger. Trouble is some women say, "No" when they mean, "Yes" here as well!

These days I am happy to have the assistance of a fit woman if I am struggling with some task - that's both intellectually and physically fit . . .

I might start worrying if/when women have more roles than men. But even then I'll be fine for a while. Women comprise about 29% of the main character and about 30% of the speaking characters.

What I don't get, is why a bunch of men are having any problem at all when women start even just approaching an equal status. Like, what is the issue?

I mean I see the point, "well they made that character a woman just because of feminism." And I don't see how that's worse than just making the character a man. Why does it matter even if they did make the character a woman because of feminism?

So like, if there is a push to get more women into roles to even out that 70/30 gap, I don't see a problem with that. I think it's stupid to like or not like a movie because one or more of the characters was a woman.

Logged

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

I mean I see the point, "well they made that character a woman just because of feminism." And I don't see how that's worse than just making the character a man. Why does it matter even if they did make the character a woman because of feminism?

So like, if there is a push to get more women into roles to even out that 70/30 gap, I don't see a problem with that. I think it's stupid to like or not like a movie because one or more of the characters was a woman.

For most people it is a problem because they don't wish to be preached at through their entertainment. (As atheists we should know something about the annoyance of being preached at while we're trying to chill)It is not the fact that there is a woman in a leading role, but rather that the creators take every opportunity to blow the horn of feminist ideology in your ear while you're just looking to enjoy yourself.

I mean I see the point, "well they made that character a woman just because of feminism." And I don't see how that's worse than just making the character a man. Why does it matter even if they did make the character a woman because of feminism?

So like, if there is a push to get more women into roles to even out that 70/30 gap, I don't see a problem with that. I think it's stupid to like or not like a movie because one or more of the characters was a woman.

For most people it is a problem because they don't wish to be preached at through their entertainment. (As atheists we should know something about the annoyance of being preached at while we're trying to chill)It is not the fact that there is a woman in a leading role, but rather that the creators take every opportunity to blow the horn of feminist ideology in your ear while you're just looking to enjoy yourself.

I could agree with that. But I haven't seen it. Is there an example of a movie where the horn of feminism ideology is being blown in my ear?

Logged

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

I mean I see the point, "well they made that character a woman just because of feminism." And I don't see how that's worse than just making the character a man. Why does it matter even if they did make the character a woman because of feminism?

So like, if there is a push to get more women into roles to even out that 70/30 gap, I don't see a problem with that. I think it's stupid to like or not like a movie because one or more of the characters was a woman.

For most people it is a problem because they don't wish to be preached at through their entertainment. (As atheists we should know something about the annoyance of being preached at while we're trying to chill)It is not the fact that there is a woman in a leading role, but rather that the creators take every opportunity to blow the horn of feminist ideology in your ear while you're just looking to enjoy yourself.

I could agree with that. But I haven't seen it. Is there an example of a movie where the horn of feminism ideology is being blown in my ear?

Most obvious example I can think of off the top of my head is from a comic book, actually. But the issue is the same in that sphere.This is Thor (Thor vol. 4, #1 (Oct. 2014):

Another obvious one is the aforementioned Ghostbusters reboot, where the makers labled all critisism, including the valid critiques of the project, as misogynistic and anti-feminist. They went out of their way to promote the movie as a feminist movie at every opportunity.

I mean I see the point, "well they made that character a woman just because of feminism." And I don't see how that's worse than just making the character a man. Why does it matter even if they did make the character a woman because of feminism?

So like, if there is a push to get more women into roles to even out that 70/30 gap, I don't see a problem with that. I think it's stupid to like or not like a movie because one or more of the characters was a woman.

For most people it is a problem because they don't wish to be preached at through their entertainment. (As atheists we should know something about the annoyance of being preached at while we're trying to chill)It is not the fact that there is a woman in a leading role, but rather that the creators take every opportunity to blow the horn of feminist ideology in your ear while you're just looking to enjoy yourself.

I could agree with that. But I haven't seen it. Is there an example of a movie where the horn of feminism ideology is being blown in my ear?

Most obvious example I can think of off the top of my head is from a comic book, actually. But the issue is the same in that sphere.This is Thor (Thor vol. 4, #1 (Oct. 2014):

I don't see it. How is that feminism being blown in my ear?

Quote from: Guardian85

Another obvious one is the aforementioned Ghostbusters reboot, where the makers labled all critisism, including the valid critiques of the project, as misogynistic and anti-feminist. They went out of their way to promote the movie as a feminist movie at every opportunity.

A few things. In the movie itself, what was so "feminist" about it?

I'm so sure about the statement, "where the makers labled all critisism, including the valid critiques of the project, as misogynistic and anti-feminist." I remember all sorts of anti-women rants and I remember the makers talking about that. I remember thousands of comments saying something like, "I'm not watching it because it's an all female cast." that happened before the movie was even filmed, let alone edited, or even released. Is that valid criticism? Can you blame them for not wanting to take a dive through a pile of 99% anti-women shit to find the "valid" criticism to which to specifically address?

I don't remember them promoting the movie as a feminist movie (though there certainly were some individuals that did so). Does saying that the cast is all women somehow make it feminist marketing?

Again, most of the stuff is anti-women, misogynistic, and pro-male shit, that there being some for women doesn't seem like an issue. And the feminism stuff isn't even anti-men, it's for gender equality.

Logged

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.